[Paul Richards]

WH


>The resistance to scoring criteria is ridiculous.  

Agreed.  Is a course just being "tough" a great test as to whether it is a magnificent golf course?  Most any course can be 'tricked-up' to be difficult - so that day at Shinnecock during the Open last year helps define its greatness?  Not in my book.  Shinnecock is a great course DESPITE what was done in the set-up that day, IMHO.

As I mentioned previously, category #2 - "Resistance to Scoring.  How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?"

Explain how this category really helps define what is a great course?  

[Doug Siebert]

W.H.,

Do they have to play the 7500 yard tees to give an honest appraisal of a course that stretches to 7500 yards?  Can't they play it from the next set up and make a pretty good guess?  Because if you don't believe that's possible, then I guess you figure its pretty much impossible for them to rate a course as it would be seen by an average golfer from 6400 yards or a senior from 5800?

I do agree that "resistance to scoring" is a pretty vague statement that different people will interpret in different ways.  The "GCA way" to interpret it might be having a lot of holes that are "hard birdie, easy par" or "hard par, easy bogey".  But too many will think that a course that's really easy so long as you hit it straight, but costs you a two stroke penalty every time you are offline has a lot of "resistance to scoring" because you've gotta be on your game to avoid a big number.

[Brock Peyer]

This sparks my ongoing frustration with Golf and Golf Digest.  I have perused the rankings briefly online and am dying to dive into them but I still have not received my subscription in the mail yet.  I really aggravates me when you can pick up a copy at the local bookstore well in advance of when it arrives in my mailbox.  Am I the only red-headed step child here or is that the case with everyone?

[Jim Franklin]

I got mine on Saturday.

[THuckaby2]

Mike Cirba:

Perhaps I am being presumptious by including myself in "good and knowledgeable GD raters", but if I am in that, well don't feel sorry for me.  I look at these rankings and have no problem with them.  I am neither perplexed nor confused.  Why is it so difficult for people to imagine that people have different ways of looking at golf courses?  That is, that what's great to you is not great to someone else... and vice versa?

Paul Richards:  I explained way back why Resistance to Scoring is a valuable criterion.  I believe it's in the middle of page 9.  It's a balance, can't be taken out of context, works with and against the other criteria.

God I loved playing golf this weekend and not hassling over ratings.  You know too, it was easy for me... I surely can't see the nuances of architecture you GW folks can, so the burden was so much less as I played Stevinson Ranch.

 

[THuckaby2]

redanman:

I looked at CA, and they're sorta weird and not how I personally would put them, but I can live with them... Same goes for PA and NY... what others am I not supposed to look at?

You guys just don't get it:  these are OPINIONS.  You love Wannomoisset, other guys see it in horrible condition and can't get past that, or just don't like it for any of many other reasons.  You think Trump International sucks and is overblown or whatever, other guys love it.

Why are you right and they wrong?

Heck, my opinions go with you all for the most part.  Some of the placements surely aren't how I'd make my personal lists.  But that makes them wrong?  An embarassment?  Please.  I'm often a cocky guy, but that's a level of arrogance that if I ever reach, shoot me now.

TH

[Jason Mandel]

I have stayed quiet on this because I think GD's rankings this year are such a joke that I really don't even know where to begin to comment.

It wasn't until Saturday, when my dad, who could give a crap about GCA screamed out, "running deer got 20th in New Jersey, what the hell is that all about!" that i realized how bad it was.

In PA there are so many omissions and som many problems with the state list that its better just to ignore it.  Any credibilty GD had with the state lists is out the window.  

These lists, both statewide and nationally are so flawed and even Ron Witten knows it.  Reading his articles this weekend he really was apoligizng for some of the rankings.

Jason

[THuckaby2]

redanman:

More OPINIONS.  Why is one "off" and ostensiblty another "on"?

 

[JakaB]

I just got the latest Golf Digest in hand and I think after reading all the numbers and the excellent explanations and accompaning articles by Ron Whitten I can easily say without bias that this is the Greatest 100 Greatest List ever...

[Mike_Cirba]

I just got the latest Golf Digest in hand and I think after reading all the numbers and the excellent explanations and accompaning articles by Ron Whitten I can easily say without bias that this is the Greatest 100 Greatest List ever...

Well, in the immortal words of one Carl Spangler, "At least Golf Digest has that going for them".  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Spackler (Shivas will have you flogged for that!)

And yes, Barney's stamp of approval just cemented Whitten's career.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I just got the latest Golf Digest in hand and I think after reading all the numbers and the excellent explanations and accompaning articles by Ron Whitten I can easily say without bias that this is the Greatest 100 Greatest List ever...

You and The Donald should do a home and home weekend to celebrate.  

[JakaB]

We already do a home and home with Valhalla...another course that I really love and the experts on GCA poo poo.  I'd love to play Trump International some day.....I really feel for their members who lurk here as everybody rains on what should be a proud parade day..

[Paul Richards]

Barney said:


>I just got the latest Golf Digest in hand and I think after reading all the numbers and the excellent explanations and accompaning articles by Ron Whitten I can easily say without bias that this is the Greatest 100 Greatest List ever...



This is just what I would expect in the world of Bizarro .....


 

[THuckaby2]

I've thought about it.

A consensus of opinions can still not possibly be "wrong."

So the consensus of a whole group of people is that they love Trump International, and the consensus of another whole group of people is that they hate it.  Why is the first group wrong and the second group right?

That's what all of you just don't get.  Golf Digest's rankings differ from what YOU would do.  That doesn't make them "wrong", "off", "horrible", choose your negative adjective.  It just makes them DIFFERENT.

So disagree with them all you want - that's what this is all about.  As I've said many times, hell I disagree with a lot of how that came out.

Just don't ever have the arrogance to say you are right and they are wrong.

Unless you are that arrogant....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Odd to you, totally normal to another man.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Oh well.. I'm off to do truly valuable course rating - the kind that helps you all to maintain your handicaps.  But we can circle around on this some other time if you wish....

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

You miss the point big time.

Digest inserted "tradition" into the equation to keep future Shadow Creeks from jumping into the fray and causing a future situation where "new" courses would likely jump into the high realm of rated courses -- ergo -- the once almighty classic courses would begin to fall like dominos.

That was the theory THEN ...

Fast forward to now -- here you Digest now ending "tradition" and relying upon the cumulative capabilities of its "esteemed" panel to come up with a final listing. The results ?

Laughable.

Now that the prop of "tradition" is removed you get to see the "tastes" of the existing Digest rater and you get such a silly collection of courses. Geeze, that sounds like what Digest originally wanted to avoid when "tradition" was inserted into the process.

I don't doubt the talent of TF -- but not 14 total courses. Not when other clear designs he has done are completely omitted (e.g. Glenwild in UT and Karsten Creek in OK, to name just two). You also have the demotion of such classics like Wannamoisett, Plainfield, etc, etc.

Huck -- it's very easy to reshape the Digest ratings. Unfortunately, existing Digest raters do not want to entertain any serious reform because it might affect their own self interest. How predictable.

I've said this before -- Digest should return to the split panel. Have state / regional people be the only ones who can rate in their neck of the woods. This would solidify those listings and keep out the interlopers who only cheery pick off one or two courses in their trek across the country.

Allow local raters -- those who know their own courses
best -- the full weight in determining their standing. If you really understood the failure of Digest this time around with such states like New York, Pennsy and even my own you could easily understand how important the state ratings are.

At the national level there are people who be the only ones to vote for the elite courses to make the top 100. Digest has sufficient people fully capable in doing this. When I was with them I met plenty of other raters who were fully informed about what is happening in all the sectors of the country. To keep things even -- you could rotate people in and out of the national panel to keep it fresh and away from being single-minded in its end results. From the assembled listing of raters that Digest has now you could easily assemble a national grouping of 100 well traveled and observant folks.

Huck -- when you permit Joe Sixpack to be the final word on a best wines listing you're likely going to get a Budweiser listing of courses. I would think Digest would know this. Forgive me for my error -- the reform I suggested would work quite well and restore what clearly has been lost this time around -- CREDIBILITY.

[Mike_Cirba]

If there is no standard definition of "good", then everything is equal?

The Golf Digest listing is starting to remind me of The Grammy's, where people like The Beatles and Brian Wilson have received a single award over their careers and you have mega-talents like Christopher Cross walking away with a handful.

There is way more emphasis on style over substance, on aesthetic over strategy, and of difficulty and challenge over thoughprovoking playability, and fun.

The criteria used is part of the problem.  I suspect the other issue is the quality of many of the raters themselves; I just can't imagine that there are 800+ people with -5 or less handicaps who have played enough of a cross-section of courses across the country to make valid comparisions.

[JakaB]

Mike and Bill,

How do you explain Firestone being the the Golfweek Classic top 100.  Is that a fault of the process because it is hardly a classic course or is it because you guys are unqualified because the course basically sucks on a very primal level...

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

I've not played Firestone, unfortunately, or I'd give you an honest opinion.

My sense is that it's presently overrated.  It's "Classic" status is based on the original, pre-RTJ course.

[JakaB]

Mike,

You have played very few of the 14 Fazio courses in the GD top 100....last I knew you have played very, very little in the midwest....and still you opine and opine on the ignorance or the Golf Digest list.   How many Golf Digest raters have you met out of the 800 or so...hmmmm...and yet you are not afraid to opine on how stupid they are....good for you and your typical Golfweek I'm smarter than everyone except redanman double standard.   I wonder if you would meet the Ward national rater test....doubt it.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

You make a good point.  There are Fazio courses I haven't seen yet and I have a big hole in my midwest resume.

On the other hand, I have played 700+ courses of all ilks (great to horrid) in 30 states and 4 countries and have studied and researched many, many others.

On the other hand, I personally know four people who've played more than me so perhaps you're also correct that my opinion is based on an insignificant statistical sample.

[Matt_Ward]

John --

For every Firestone you mention (I do agree with your take on that example) I will be more than happy to fire away at numerous examples from the Digest national and state listings.

No list will ever be perfect because opinion is clearly an issue here. The question comes down to batting average -- the Digest listing is clearly moving in the direction of the minor leagues in course assessments IMHO.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

I should also point out that there are a number of people whose opinions I respect (raters of various publications and non-raters) who I'll ask.

That's a big part of the purpose of this discussion group.

I don't vote on the courses, but I know a bunch of people who've been around who've played Hudson National and don't place it anywhere near the Top 100, for instance.

[JakaB]

No list will ever be perfect because opinion is clearly an issue here. The question comes down to batting average -- the Digest listing is clearly moving in the direction of the minor leagues in course assessments IMHO.

Matt,

Will you admit that in the real world of public opinion that by being a Golfweek Rater that you are on the Junior Varsity.  Hell, you even play first.  Golf Digest is and continues to be the Varsity, Division One, Big Kahuna of ratings and that my friend seems best to explain the constant whining of the second team.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()